Why is it so hard to decide what to do to aid overtaking?

[cosmicpanda]

Why can the teams/FIA simply hold a test day, put a few cars on hard tires and max aero and get them to race a few laps and judge the ease or difficulty of overtaking; then put those cars on softs with a monza aero setup and get them to do the same?

If there was some scientific experimentation before changing the rules, this hit-or-miss approach could be avoided, which would benefit everybody.

[DexDexter]

Why can the teams/FIA simply hold a test day, put a few cars on hard tires and max aero and get them to race a few laps and judge the ease or difficulty of overtaking; then put those cars on softs with a monza aero setup and get them to do the same?

If there was some scientific experimentation before changing the rules, this hit-or-miss approach could be avoided, which would benefit everybody.

The problem is the cars never stay the same. The designers constantly create more downforce and what works now, might not work in six months.

[Mark]

That's the difficulty when you have a formula series based on regulations rather than specifications.

[fandango]

The problem is the cars never stay the same. The designers constantly create more downforce and what works now, might not work in six months.

That's because they are going about the rule changes the wrong way. I remember in the early 80s there was a big discussion on how to improve safety, especially because the driver's position within the car was too far forward, resulting in serious foot injuries, deaths etc (I'm thinking of the accidents that befell Pironi, Palletti, Laffitte, Herbert and others) There were lots of rule proposals about how to improve safety. Now, I know I'm simplifying things a little, but what we have now is a crash test system , where the designers are fee to innovate within the formula, but the cars will be illegal if they don't pass the test.

So, we've all heard the idea that a chasing car has its downforce compromised by the "dirty air" from the car in front. Some have even expressed the downforce reduction as a percentage. So, all they need to do is have a wind tunnel test at the same time as the crash tests, where a car that causes more than a certain percentage cut to a chasing car's downforce is deemed illegal. It leaves the designers and engineers free to innovate.

My apologies for the fact that it's not the first or second time I've posted this, but it makes sense, doesn't it?

[Mark]

It does indeed. Which means it'll never happen. The question of course is how you specify the "following car"

[fandango]

It does indeed. Which means it'll never happen. The question of course is how you specify the "following car"

Yeah. They could have a generic car, a standard. Or they could have the same car following, or a random car from the grid. They could have a secondhand VW Golf, it would be the same case with any of those, because the question is how much a car disturbs the air that it leaves in its wake.

[Ent]

...it would be the same case with any of those, because the question is how much a car disturbs the air that it leaves in its wake.

And are they going to repeat this test for every single innovation that each team makes to the aero package? Because each aero change would change the way the air is disturbed behind the car. Or should we ban aero tweeks during the year, stifling innovation? For every new set of regulations, there's a double-diffuser or some other new development to boost car speed (which is a key aim for a team wanting to win the championship). The trouble lies in setting restrictions on design (to aid overtaking), while trying not to restrict innovation, which is a key facet of the F1 series.

[fandango]

And are they going to repeat this test for every single innovation that each team makes to the aero package? Because each aero change would change the way the air is disturbed behind the car. Or should we ban aero tweeks during the year, stifling innovation? For every new set of regulations, there's a double-diffuser or some other new development to boost car speed (which is a key aim for a team wanting to win the championship). The trouble lies in setting restrictions on design (to aid overtaking), while trying not to restrict innovation, which is a key facet of the F1 series.

Why not? The teams test everything anyway. Or they could have a situation where small changes would be tested on CAD, with the stewards having the right to make a full check if they suspect a car is not legal.

New developments? That's the whole point. This scenario would still give teams flexibility to improve, to be better than the others, as long as they don't disturb the air beyond a certain level.

[cosmicpanda]

The problem is the cars never stay the same. The designers constantly create more downforce and what works now, might not work in six months.

That's true, but the regulations can define a starting point for the designers to start from. Generic restrictions on aero + super soft tyres would likely lead to a much different car than generic support of aero + super hard tyres, and relatively subtle changes to the cars in terms of downforce and the like is merely good car design and not something to be discouraged.

This is assuming that there are no loopholes in the regs that lead to double diffusers, ride height adjusters and all that.


Also, this is more a general process that should be applied for all major rule chages than a one off; as such, were previous changes found to be ineffective due to developments in car design, there would be a higher chance of finding an effective solution than the current arbitrary system of changes that we have.

[DexDexter]

That's true, but the regulations can define a starting point for the designers to start from. Generic restrictions on aero + super soft tyres would likely lead to a much different car than generic support of aero + super hard tyres, and relatively subtle changes to the cars in terms of downforce and the like is merely good car design and not something to be discouraged.

This is assuming that there are no loopholes in the regs that lead to double diffusers, ride height adjusters and all that.


Also, this is more a general process that should be applied for all major rule chages than a one off; as such, were previous changes found to be ineffective due to developments in car design, there would be a higher chance of finding an effective solution than the current arbitrary system of changes that we have.

F1 people are very very clever, so as long as there are rules, there will be loopholes.

[Saint Devote]

It is not technical decisions rapidly "loopholed" that the problem. Its that decisions have to be agreed to by EVERY team.

It ought to be a simple majority as in any other sort of business and a fair but firm adjudicator in the FIA - Todt is capable - would do the sport fine.

F1 teams are able to react quickly, therefore the regulating system ought to be capable of similar movement.

[jens]

The problem with loopholes and other such stuff is that the designers in F1 teams are simply smarter than the rule creators at FIA. If for instance Newey was writing rules, maybe he would be smart enough to foresee possible loopholes.